On November 14, residents of Austin gathered in Austin Community College – Eastview Campus to discuss access to affordable housing in Austin. This discussion was preceded by a Front Porch Gathering on the effects of Gentrification for those who have remained in East Austin that occurred earlier in the year.

The evening began with a presentation by Dr. Eric Tang, director of the Social Justice Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Tang helped provide context for the evening’s discussion by detailing the Austin housing market and its relationship to Median Family Income (MFI). Home values in Austin have continued to grow for almost a decade due to the tech industry boom as many single, young and wealthy new residents have relocated to the city. In January of 2005, the median value of a home in Austin was about $150,000. By January of 2017, the median value of a home in Austin was hovering around $250,000. The rising values of homes do not just affect the people who purchase them, but also increase the values of the surrounding real estate. These home values increase property taxes and rental cost for both new and old residents.

Along with home values, the Median Family Income in Austin has also risen. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2005 the median income for a household in Austin was $43,731. By 2016, the median household income had risen to $66,697. However, despite increases, median household incomes have not been able to keep up with the rising cost of homes in Austin. For example, a four-person household within the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) making $62,250 or less is considered low-income by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). That means that almost 60% percent of Austin households are considered low income by HUD. The conflicting nature of the Austin housing market being valued so highly while most of the population isn’t making an income sufficient enough to afford that housing, has caused a large gap in the availability of affordable housing.

Dr. Amanda Masino, director of the Center on Environmental Justice and professor of biology at Huston-Tillotson University (HT) followed Dr. Tang’s presentation with a discussion of an alarming facet of the housing conversation: the affect your neighborhood has on your health. Dr. Masino informed attendees that zip code has a strong influence on one’s life expectancy and quality of life. For example, in the City of El Paso, the zip code of 79906, near the El Paso International Airport had a life expectancy of 71 years, while all the surrounding zip codes, ranging from four miles to six miles away, had a life expectancy of 78-81 years. In the City of Miami, there is a 15 year difference between the life expectancies of two zip codes only two miles away from each other.

Relating to the theme of life expectancy, Dr. Masino’s current research tries to answer the question of how affordable housing affects residents and their social, medical, cultural, economic, and educational resources. Dr. Masino stated that this research will “help align impact of policy to intent of policy, promote accountability and transparency, and support open, centralized, and consistent reporting.”

Dr. Masino continued by bringing the discussion to a local level: the Median Family Income in 78702 zip code, where the Front Porch Gathering was being held. The amount of residents making 100% MFI in the 78702 neighborhood was much lower than what the average amount is in the Austin-Round Rock area, and the amount of residents living at 30% or 50% of MFI was staggeringly higher than the average of residents living in the wider Austin- Round Rock area. Using the information presented by both Dr. Tang and Dr. Masino, attendees were equipped with more knowledge, questions and concerns for their discussion as they moved into their break-out sessions

The biggest question that the four breakout groups discussed was “how is affordability defined?” During his presentation, Dr. Tang informed the audience that the City of Austin does not have a formal working definition of affordable housing. Based on the group discussions, members were confused, but not entirely surprised by this detail. Using the definition given by HUD, attendees discussed how the 30% rule- housing including utilities should not be more than 30% of a household’s income- is not possible for them and those that they know. Some members highlighted that the “living wage” in its current state does not allow for most of Austin’s residents to live and work in the city without being severely cost burdened by housing and transportation.

Residents also brought up questions of who the affordable housing was actually catering to, and what types of residents were falling through the cracks. One member argued that affordable housing should also take into consideration matching the appropriate home to the right person. For example, a single college student may need affordable housing, but they should not live in a unit that was clearly built with a family in mind, and in doing so, take away that home from a low-income family. The groups concluded that affordable housing is not a simple one size fits all problem. Arguing that there should be workforce housing, boarding homes, smart housing for the single person who can’t afford a home in the city limits, housing for small families and housing for large families, affordable housing for the differently abled residents in the workforce and for the elderly.

Some attendees believed that Austin isn’t making accessible affordable housing due to the city’s focus on creating high-end housing for wealthy incoming transplants. The theme of catering to the incoming population traveled throughout the groups leading many to question the effect housing is having on displacing Austin’s community of color, primarily in prominent Central East Austin neighborhoods.

When developing new housing, developers and the city work together to decide what type of housing is needed based on the city’s demographics. However, attendees were skeptical about that process, and wanted to know more information. They did not see evidence of a demographics based approach in their own lives. In their minds, few developments catered to them and those in their communities.

Throughout the evening, groups routinely discussed how they did not feel that using family MFI to predict housing needs was sufficient. The Median Family Income (MFI) in 2016 for a family of four in the Austin-Round Rock area was $77,800. This type of averaging was seen by attendees as a way of diminishing the need of many of the low-income residents of the city, and possibly contributing to the displacement of these communities.

Many attendees used their current circumstances as evidence for how the MFI fails to tell the true story of Austinites trying to stay within the city limits. Many residents from low-income neighborhoods of color have already left the city limits after being unable to access affordable housing. One attendee described her experience of moving out towards the northern Austin-Pflugerville area due to the cost of remaining in the city. She clarified that due to having her own personal mode of transportation this was an option for her, but moving away is not an easy choice for those who rely on mass transit. The City of Austin is losing long-term residents from areas that are being redeveloped, and is failing to come up with long-term solutions. Many of the participants who live in these changing neighborhoods questioned what the city’s real motivation is behind making the city more affordable. Is it a political move or is it more altruistic?

After a thorough discussion of where the City of Austin has made appropriate strides in affordability, and where they have fallen short, participants brainstormed solutions. Attendees focused on how the city can make low income (or fixed income) residents who are endangered of being displaced feel like Austinites again. To that end, the groups created action steps to help make the city more accessible:

Affordable housing literacy awareness and education

City to address the rampant spreading of development

Creation of community meetings that would educate residents on property taxes and financing

Spreading density around the city to five low income residents the option of living west of the interstate

Throughout the evening attendees were primarily focused on keeping current residents, particularly families and the elderly, in their home. Attendees also wanted the city to take a more holistic approach to creating affordable housing, taking into consideration all the different types of people in the city who were struggling to remain in their home. The 1928 Austin City Plan set into motion what we see is happening throughout the eastern portion of Austin, residents are looking towards the city to mitigate the current gentrification and displacement that is occurring.

The Community Engagement Center thanks KLRU’s Decibel for live streaming portions of the event to the community. For those who could not attend, the live stream is available on the facebook page: Decibel ATX.

To learn more about what the city is trying to do make affordable housing more accessible and reduce the effects of gentrification, you can access the Mayor’s Task Force on Institutional Racism and Systemic Inequities’ report.

For more information on Dr. Masino’s social justice work in East Austin, learn more about her student activism group, Green is the New Black.

For a deeper understanding of the current displacement of African Americans in Austin, read Dr. Eric Tang’s “Those Who Left.”

The next upcoming Front Porch Gathering will be held on February 20th. Community members will gather at ACC-Eastview to discuss how to best support those reentering our community from the prison system.

The immigration conversations that have been at the forefront of national conversation struck home in Travis County last February. During a two day sweep, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arrested 51 undocumented immigrants in Austin, and 681 nationally as part of raids in Los Angeles. Chicago, Atlanta and New York. In a city that considers itself a Sanctuary, the effects of national immigration policy were suddenly all too real.

This is the atmosphere in which February’s Front Porch gathering on the localized effects of immigration policy occurred. Community members, activists, students and thought leaders gathered at David Chapel Missionary Church on October 17, just a few miles from where the majority of raids occurred. The evening’s conversation focused on making the story of immigration local, personal and urgent.

The evening of community began with two personal testimonies. First, Dreamer and DACA recipient, Samuel Cervantes shared his story of finding out that he was undocumented when it came time to apply for his Driver’s License. Coming from Mexico when he was just a child, he thrived at school in the United States. As his friends began to drive and look into colleges, his parents had to explain that he would not be able to do any of those things because of his immigration status. The Dreamers legislation reignited his hopes for a future in the country that he called home, and when it failed, he was devastated. DACA gave him a chance to go to college. Now, Samuel interns as an advocate for other undocumented people at FWD.US.

The second testimony of the evening was from Edilsa Argentine. Unstable economic and social conditions caused her mother to flee with her and her sisters to the United States. During their journey, Edilsa was kidnapped and held for ransom. Early one morning, Edilsa escaped, and found help from a local. Thanks to DACA, Edilsa was able to graduate from college and get a job as an accountant. She is the sole provider for her mother and her sisters. With the cancellation of DACA, she will lose her right to work, and her family will lose their primary source of income.

These stories helped set the tone of the evening, recalibrating folk’s connection to the conversation. Attendees were thus encouraged to approach the evening’s discussion less from the prism of a political agenda and more from the understanding of the human effects of immigration policy.

In the breakout sessions, community members expressed a range of reasons for attending. Some were there to gather information, some were informed and wanted to take action, and others were there to share their stories. Newcomers to the immigration issue were surprised by the urgency of the issue. They did not know that immigration raids had occurred in their neighborhoods.

The groups discussed what it meant to be an ally to undocumented immigrants and what role they could play in outreach, the creation of safe spaces, and how to share information. Ideas included showing an understanding and compassion for the emotions that undocumented immigrants are currently going through, helping to spread information on immigrant rights, stopping the spread of disinformation and panic, and creating and maintaining places of refuge and resources in homes, churches and schools.

Community leaders discussed the need to not only help immigrants know their rights, but to fight misinformation about immigrants. They advocated speaking to neighbors and their fellow community members about the history of immigration law, DACA, and what policies Austin had in place to protect the undocumented. They wanted members of the community to know about the real danger that migrants experience as they fight to maintain some normalcy in their lives by running errands, taking their children to school, and trying to remain a member of the community that they call home, despite the threat of deportation. They also discussed what it means to be a sanctuary city, and what the City of Austin has done, and hasn’t done, to earn that label.

The evening ended with a call to action, specifically around what allies can do to support migrants as members of their community, even as national and state legislation leaves some feeling powerless. A thread that emerged was the importance of getting involved in policy making at a local level. People shared that even if national politics are disheartening, there are still actions that community members can take locally to affect immigration issues. Community members emphasized that no meeting was too small, and suggested using networks to reach out to local legislators, including school boards.

City of Austin Commission on Immigration Affairs – An opportunity for community members to provide feedback to City Council on issues facing Austin’s immigration population http://www.austintexas.gov/coia

The Community Engagement Center’s Front Porch Gatherings are a space for Austin’s community to connect, discuss, and take action on issues that affect us all.

Please join us for our next Front Porch Gathering on affordable housing accessibility on Tuesday, November 14th at 6:30PM. We will be meeting at Austin Community College, Eastview Campus (3401 Webberville Road) in the All Purpose Room.

The 2017 Front Porch Gathering Series kicked off at David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church on October 19th. College students, current and former educators, parents, activists and community members came together to discuss education equity in east Austin. The night’s conversation not only on focused on opportunity gaps within East Austin schools, but also on creating opportunities for students through schools and their community.

Dr. Terrance Green, an Assistant Professor of the University of Texas’ Department of Educational Leadership and Policy set the tone for the evening, providing a powerful breakdown of the systemic issues challenging primarily black and brown kids in East Austin (and much of urban America). Dr. Green illustrated the effects perspective can have on each other and our community by facilitating a quick ice breaker. He asked attendees to discuss an image on the projector that appeared to show the entire image but when you zoomed out to show the true image the story completely changed. Dr. Green used the ice breaker as a way to illustrate to the audience that “You can only see based on the lens that was given to you”.

Dr. Green challenged those in attendance to reorganize their thinking about the problem with three key points: “1) We must be intentional in examining education, 2) New ways of seeing create new ways of being and, 3) Whatever lens you use to see people, controls what you see.” The framework introduced at the end of his presentation urged everyone in the room to dismiss the notion of achievement gap and instead to approach what many students in East Austin are challenged with, as opportunities gaps. Dr.Green pointedly stated that the gaps students in low-income communities’ face are not a result of their capacity to learn but of their opportunity to learn. To conclude his presentation and bring focus back to the issue at hand, Dr. Green left attendees with the message that “reform [has] to start in and with the community.”

The group discussions were facilitated by community and university thought leaders including, Dr. Wanda Nelson, an educator and education advocate, Chloe Latham Sikes, a UT Doctoral Candidate on Educational Policy and Planning, Dr. Ted Gordon, Department Chair of UT Austin’s African and African Diaspora Studies and Tashara Mitchell, an AISD staffer.

The issues of equity in financing and management of schools in Austin were widely discussed. Members of the groups raised questions surrounding concerns on where education funding is being allocated around the city and how the district can do a better job redistributing resources to schools. Mr. Jones, an ex-tax collector, expressed his feelings that “No school district should be more important than another.” The topic of quality of educators at school was also touched on. Members brought up issues surrounding methods for recruiting teachers, the training process for teachers, the student to teacher ratios and the voices of teachers being heard by those above them. Through their discussion the group was able to come to an understanding that a lot of issues that create education inequity in their communities began at the top with school administration and the agencies that watch them.

Many attendees discussed their own experiences when answering the first question of the night, what does quality education mean to you? Many believed that education should be “inspiring” and give students the “tools” they need to go on to higher education. A parent of a charter school student shared that he believed that students should have curriculums that cater to their individual skills and interest. In one group the difference between equality and equity was thoroughly discussed as attendees who were in the education field gave examples of when equality was not enough. In the end the groups were able to acknowledge that in order to get a quality education in East Austin students need advocates, people who will get involved in the political process and policy and in the community on their behalf.

Throughout the groups there were powerful discussions focused on actions attendees could take to personally change their community. Attendees used their personal experience as students and now as adults with school aged children or adults in higher education to influence what they thought would help minimize Dr. Green’s Opportunity Gaps:

mentoring

engaging with the public school system

being politically involved

creative programs that cater to students of color

listening to the stories of other community members in East Austin

To wrap up the evening, Dr. Terrance Green gave a final presentation where he informed the attendees of the effects gentrification are having in East Austin and other low income communities. Changes that come with gentrification do not only affect local businesses and housing prices but seep into the fabric of the community and affect our children’s ability to get a quality education. Before calling the evening to an end Dr. Green reminded attendees that “victims of oppression should be the ones saying what justice looks like,” leaving everyone present with the conviction that after tonight they can go forward in implementing changes to create better schools within their communities.

The next Front Porch Gathering will be held October 17th on immigration, immigration policy and the role of institutions to be a support system to affected communities.

To further engage in the conversation and connect with work taking place to improve education equity consider these efforts:

]]>Building Bridges Recap (9/29): Dr. Terrence Green and Community Equity Literacyhttp://diversity.utexas.edu/communitycenter/2017/09/building-bridges-recap-9-29-dr-terrence-green-and-community-equity-literacy/
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:50:36 +0000http://diversity.utexas.edu/communitycenter/?p=487read more]]>Friday’s Building Bridges conversation was led by Dr. Terrence Green who came to share his tool for measuring Community Equity Literacy in school leadership. Dr. Green was there at the request of the Community Engagement Center which has taken stewardship of every third Friday’s Building Bridges conversation as a way to connect the University with the community.

Dr. Green is an assistant professor and researcher at the University of Texas in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy. His research focuses on school and community leaders, and the impact they can have on creating urban school reform and a socially just community.

Dr. Green shared that he was attending the Building Bridges conversation to engage in a true dialogue, instead of just giving a presentation on his findings because, “universities do not have a monopoly on answers and experiences.” Therefore, he asked the gathered participants on that Friday to give him feedback and critiques on the community equity tool he was developing.

The community equity tool aims to name and quantify how school leaders successfully partner and engage with their communities to leverage community assets, and create equitable school reform. The tool measures a school leader’s equity literacy. The tool identifies several areas which successful school leaders use to create positive strides in equity for their community.

These areas, which are still under development, include:

Community power Structure: the extent to which school leaders use their power “with” and not “over” the community

Community assets: the ways in which school leaders leverage community assets and avoid deficit thinking.

School and community equity:successful school leaders work with school and community equity in mind.

Community history:the extent to which the school leader operates with knowledge of the community’s history and incorporates that knowledge when making decisions.

Reciprocity:the ways that the leader develops a reciprocal partnership between the school and the community.

Once fully developed, this tool could help developing school leaders to measure their progress in equity literacy so that they can develop their skills in targeted ways. Additionally, this measurement tool could create an infrastructure for equity that would mitigate the effects of changes in school leadership. Leaders can use the equity tool as a rubric that allows them to continue and build upon the work of their predecessors, creating sustainable models for community equity.

Dr. Green asked the Building Bridges attendees to rank the areas from most to least important, and then asked them to share their rankings and analysis with the group. He would use the rankings to inform the numerical values assigned to each category, and their weighted importance. The feedback from the group could help identify gaps in the categories and any additions that needed to be made.

Responses varied amongst the attendees. Some considered Community Power Structure to be the most important, while others focused on Community Assets. One participant pointed out that rather than being ranked, the categories could be viewed as a sequence. For example, a school leader may need to understand community history before being able to work with true equity in mind; the categories could be sequential, but equally important.

Dr. Green concluded the conversation by thanking participants for their feedback, and committing to continue to solicit community perspectives. He reiterated the idea that a model focused on the community should not be created solely in a university, a lesson that he well understood as a former high school science teacher himself.